PSOW Individual Decisions

Mr I complained that Cardiff Council failed to maintain and collect rubbish on the streets which has attracted a large number of seagulls. The Ombudsman found that whilst the Council had provided a response from a general waste point of view, it failed to provide a corporate complaint response. She said this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr I. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s consent to issue its corporate complaint response with its apologies by 31 October.

Mr X complained that Cardiff Council did not fully investigate the cause of damp at his client’s home which he alleged caused unnecessary delays and inconvenience. He also complained about inaccuracies and contradictions within the Council’s report. The Ombudsman decided that there had been delays and oversights in undertaking a further damp inspection due to cancelled appointments, and a failure to follow up on the cancelled appointments for works at the property. She said this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr X’s client. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to contact Mr X’s client within 2 weeks to arrange an urgent damp inspection and further arrangements to repoint the brickwork / install dry rods. It should also issue a letter of apology to Mr X’s client for the confusion and delay caused by the previously cancelled work, and for the oversight in not following this up.

Mrs E complained that the flooring in her home had started to discolour due to the presence of asbestos. She said Cardiff Council had failed to carry out regular monitoring of asbestos in her property. The Ombudsman found that the property had been inspected in2019 but no further monitoring had taken place since Mrs E raised her complaint. She said this further increased Mrs E’s concerns. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to undertake a visit at the property within 4 weeks, to review the condition of the asbestos where access to it is easily accessible

Mr B complained that he had not received a response from Cardiff Council (“the Council”) to a complaint that he made about an uneven and broken surface along one of the Council’s cycling and walking routes. The Ombudsman found that Mr B had not received a formal response from the Council. The Ombudsman contacted the Council and in resolution of Mr B’s complaint it agreed to, within 20 working days investigate and respond to the complaint and apologise to Mr B for the failure to respond. The Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate resolution and did not investigate.

Ms A complained that she was unhappy with Cardiff Council’s response to her complaint about flies in her property from exterior bins, issues relating to housing officers, and reasonable adjustments for communication. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not provided a solution to the flies. Ms A’s relationship with housing officers was no longer positive and it was unclear if reasonable adjustments for communication had been formally agreed. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement within 10 working days, to write to Ms A to confirm reasonable adjustments, allocation of a new housing officer, and arrangements for installation of fly screens.

Ms L complained that Cardiff Council did not act on her concerns raised, and that it failed to provide a resolution. The Ombudsman found that although the Council received a formal complaint from Ms L, it failed to adhere to its statutory complaints procedure and provide a response. She said this caused frustration and uncertainty to Ms L. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman sought and gained the Councils agreement to issue and apology and complaint response within 2 weeks.

Mr A complained that despite a previous Ombudsman settlement, he remained dissatisfied with Cardiff Council’s response to his complaint about his neighbour. Mr A said there were periods of inaction and lack of updates, since reporting the issue over thirteen months ago. The Ombudsman decided that there had been continued periods of unnecessary delays and inaction, and that the Council had failed to keep Mr A fully informed. She said that this caused frustration for Mr A. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr A, offer a redress payment of £100and to provide a written explanation of the powers/process under which the Council can act within 10working days.

Miss C complained that Cardiff Council failed to provide a response to her concerns about housing repairs. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not logged Miss C concerns as a complaint. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Miss C. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise and provide an explanation to Miss C for the failure to log her complaint, offer her £75 redress and issue a complaint response within 4 weeks.

Miss L complained that Cardiff Council failed to resolve issues of Anti-Social Behaviour. She further complained that although the Council confirmed a neighbouring greenhouse was the main cause of damp within her property, it failed to take any action since 2020. The Ombudsman concluded that there had been a significant delay in resolving Miss L’s concerns, and that it had failed to act on promised resolution methods that it had previously discussed. She said this caused frustration to Miss L. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman sought and gained the Councils agreement to provide Miss L with an apology for not actioning promised resolution methods, to attend and request the greenhouse to be removed and issue a time and trouble payment of £150 for the delays and poor complaints handling. The Council agreed that it would action the above within 30 working days.

Ms S complained that Cardiff Council had failed to maintain a gated garden area located directly in front of her windows. She further complained that there had been a breakdown in communication with the Council, and it had failed to respond to her most recent complaint. The Ombudsman concluded that there had been a significant delay by the Council to resolve Ms S’ concerns and found that the Council had failed to respond to Ms S’s most recent complaint. She said this caused unnecessary frustration to Ms S and decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 4 weeks, apologise to Ms S for the delays, provide her with a complaint response and offer her financial redress of £250. The Council also agreed to schedule the Land and Asset Team to attend Ms S’s property and furthermore, to eliminate any future issues arising, the Council agreed to provide the Ombudsman with evidence that the maintenance plan agreed to in a previous case is being adhered to for the next 6 months.

Mr A complained that Cardiff Council had failed to provide a Stage 2 response to the Social Services complaint he made on behalf of Miss B on 1 July 2022. The Ombudsman found that there had been a delay by the Council to progress Miss B’s complaint as it had instead offered her a meeting. She said this caused delays and frustration for Miss B. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise and provide an explanation to Miss B for the delay, offer her redress of £200 and appoint an independent investigator within 4 weeks. The Council also agreed to undertake a review to identify if there are any similarly disadvantaged complainants and to take appropriate action in any similar cases.

Ms C complained that Cardiff Council failed to explain why it felt it was appropriate to house a convicted sex offender across the hall from her as a single mother with a young daughter. The Ombudsman found that it was South Wales Police who assessed the property and deemed it suitable for the offender and not the Council. She found that this information was not communicated to Ms C which caused additional frustration. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation and sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Ms C, within two weeks, apologising for its failure to communicate vital information and to explain who was responsible for the offenders housing allocation

Mr L complained that the Council had failed to resolve the issue of damp and mould in his property and keep him updated with any progress. The Ombudsman decided that there had been a delay by the Council to rectify the issue and this had caused inconvenience and frustration for Mr L. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide Mr L with an apology for the delay, provide a £50 time and trouble payment, and to complete all necessary works within 6 weeks.

Mr Z complained that Cardiff Council had failed to consider his video footage when it had investigated his complaint. The Ombudsman decided that there had been an oversight by the Council to consider Mr Z’s evidence and this had caused frustration for Mr Z. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to consider Mr Z’s video footage and provide him with a further complaint response within 4 weeks.

Ms X complained about issues concerning the Council’s social services department’s involvement with her children. She said that the Council had not commissioned a stage 2 independent investigation to consider these matters. The assessment found that Ms X had requested a stage 2 independent investigation. However, due to delays in the Council being able to appoint an investigator, the investigation was not pursued at that time. Ms X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of her concerns and she had newer concerns that she wished to raise. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to commission a stage 2 independent investigation into all of Ms X’s concerns within 2 months.

Mrs F complained that Cardiff Council refused to investigate her social services complaint. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had wrongly determined that the complaint fell outside the statutory procedure. She said that this caused delays and frustration for Mrs F. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mrs F and accept her complaint in line with the Council’s Social Services Complaint Policy within 10 working days.

Mr X complained that he accepted a housing offer based on video footage of a different property. He said he was pressured into accepting the offer although the property was not suitable for his family’s needs. He also raised complaint handling concerns, questioned the accuracy of responses provided and the completeness of the tenancy records. The Ombudsman was satisfied that no significant injustice was caused because of the sample video footage. However, she was concerned that relevant evidence about Mr X’s daughter’s health needs had not been considered before the offer was made, and that Mr X had provided additional correspondence not produced by the Council. The Council accepted that due to an administrative delay, the evidence was not processed before the housing offer was made. She sought and obtained the Council’s agreement to, within one month: • apologise to Mr X and his family for the administrative delay and explain how/why this occurred • make a redress payment of £800 in recognition of the uncertainty caused about the suitability of the housing offer made, time and trouble and the inconvenience of a second move • provide details of the action taken to avoid similar administrative delays from occurring in future cases and ensure tenancy records are accurate and complete. This action was accepted as an alternative to an investigation.

Mr S complained that further to building works being completed in May 2021, he had contacted the Council’s Building Control department on several occasions but had not received a response. The Ombudsman was concerned that Mr S had yet to receive a response to his concerns and had encountered significant delays. The Ombudsman therefore contacted the Council. As an alternative to an investigation, the Council agreed that within 30 working days of the Ombudsman’s decision letters, it would write to Mr S and apologise for the delays encountered along with an explanation. The Council also agreed that it would provide Mr S with a timeframe on the required works being carried out and a £125 time and trouble payment. The Ombudsman accepted this as a resolution to Mr S’ complaint.

Ms X complained that the Council had not fully responded to the concerns she raised in June 2022 about public consultation over a proposed land transfer. The Ombudsman was concerned that Ms X had yet to receive a full response to the concerns raised and asked it to write to Ms X to apologise for the delay in responding and issue a full written response within 30 working days. The Ombudsman considered this to represent an appropriate resolution to Ms X’s complaint and did not investigate.

Mr X complained that the Council had not erected signage to reflect the new speed limits on his road. He said he had submitted a complaint and emailed the Council but had not received a response. In making enquiries with the Council, the Ombudsman was informed that a response had subsequently been provided to Mr X. However after further consideration the Ombudsman was not satfisfied the response fully addressed Mr X’s concerns and as an alternative to an investigation, she asked the Council to provide with Mr X with a sincere apology for the delay and failure to respond formally to his complaint and to issue with Mr X with an additional complaint response within10 working days.

Ms X complained that the Council did not respond to her complaint about her current housing situation, which she says is not suitable for her and her daughter’s needs. The Ombudsman contacted the Council, and it agreed to provide a response to Ms X’s complaint within 2 weeks of the Ombudsman’s decision. The Ombudsman considered this to be a sufficient resolution as an alternative to investigating the complaint.

Mr X complained that the Council failed to take action concerning a neighbour feeding birds in the street. The Ombudsman found that the Council received Mr X’s concerns, but did not record it as a complaint and consequently it was not investigated. The Ombudsman sought and obtained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr X by the end of the current calendar month and to investigate the issues raised under its Corporate  Complaint Process.

Mr X complained that the Council had failed to provide him with a response to his complaint which he submitted on 13 June 2022. In considering the complaint the Ombudsman was concerned about the delays and that Mr X had been inconvenienced by the Council’s failure to provide a response. As an alternative to an investigation, she asked the Council to complete the following in settlement of Mr X’s complaint: By 25 October 2022 a) Apologise to Mr X for the delay in responding to his complaint b) Provide Mr X with a complaint response c) Provide Mr X with a financial payment of £50 in recognition of the delays 17 October 2022

Miss B complained that the Council failed to follow the social services complaints procedure and did not provide an adequate response. She further complained that she felt that the Council did not consider her son’s best interests The Ombudsman was concerned that Miss B had been provided with incorrect information regarding her complaint and had not received an adequate response. The Ombudsman contacted the Council and it agreed to apologise and acknowledge Miss B’s complaint by 10 October 2022. The Council also agreed to issue a stage 1response by 11 November 2022.

Mr X complained that the Council did not respond to his complaint about dangerous parking. The Ombudsman contacted the Council, and it agreed to provide a response to Mr X’s complaint by 14 October 2022. It also agreed to apologise to Mr X for the delay its response. The Ombudsman considered this to be a sufficient resolution as an alternative to investigating the complaint.